February 29, 2012

A commenter named John says in regard to the National Merit semifinalist lists:

What we are seeing is that Jews are beginning to neglect vanity projects in terms of intellectual achievement - they no longer care about dominating purely social markers of intellectual success, that are more about vanity than real accomplishment.

So far as I know we have not seen any decline in Jewish Nobels or in Jewish names amongst famous intellectuals in all areas. Has there been such a decline? THAT would be a significant marker.

Good question. A methodological problem is that a lot of measures of accomplishment -- Nobels, Forbes 400, Oscars, etc. -- have time lags built in. Probably looking at founders of major IPOs in this century would be a good test with the shortest time lag. The three most obvious names are Zuckerberg, Page, and Brin, but I don't follow that field closely.

But as far as I know where it counts, Jews perform as well as ever. But in terms of social vanity markers, Jews simply no longer have the motivation they had when they were outsiders in American society - which is exactly what one would expect.

Interestingly, whites have been underperforming their average IQ in terms of vanity and prestige projects (including admission to an elite unis, which is in many ways more about vanity than economic success) for quite some time now, which is precisely what one would expect - viewed from sociological perspective - from the group that has the most secure social position and feels the least need to *prove* anything.

That Asians are exerting enormous effort to do well in areas whose significance is to a high degree about vanity and prestige makes total sense. It brings to mind the way many Third World countries spend enormous amounts to build sparkling, palatial airports, while LAX is a dump ;)

That Jews are now converging with Whites in terms of their indifference to vanity projects is something that we should have expected.

I predict that in 50 years, the crazy Asian numbers we are seeing now in all these fields - coupled with a troubling lack of real world excellence - will diminish considerably and become more in line with their average IQ, which will still give them a modest overrepresentation in some fields, but nothing like what we are seeing now.

When that happens, we will know that Asians have *arrived* as Americans and no longer feel the need to *prove* themselves, and we can welcome them into the fold ;) But before that Asians will have to come to terms with the painful reality that their talents are far more modest than they would have wished. The Japanese have already gone through this self-reckoning, and are the most relaxed and easy going of the Asians as a result.

Could be. Or then again, maybe not.

Remember how there was a brief war in 1962 between China and India over some sparsely inhabited high-altitude terrain in the Himalayas where the border wasn't agreed upon? Perhaps the big issue in American politics in 2062 will be over that border, with one party backing China's claims and the other India's. How do we know that in fifty years, the burning issue of the day in American political and intellectual circles won't be whether China or India has rightful control of Aksai Chin, a region of salt deserts at 16,000 feet?

If that sounds nuts, then imagine what President Eisenhower would have said in 1956 if you told him that in 2012 the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination would compete over foreign policy mostly by trying to promise the most fervently to beat up anybody who questions Israel's right to the shore of the Dead Sea?

156 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Yeah I gotta agree with Steve Sailer here. Time lag is a huge problem with John's argument. Jewish Nobelists even today are often 60-70+ year olds. The real question is how the current cohorts of Jewish children today will pan out in the long run.

We can project into the future all we want but the terms of change changes the very nature of change. Before there was the computer, people imagined the future without computer technology. But the arrival of computers changed the very trajectory of change. So, we must be careful to avoid Malthusianism about the future of America. What if Mexican birthrates plummet across all classes? What if new birthcontrol devices allow all women to avoid more pregnancies? What if new technology allows artificial birthing through machines? Imagine an artificial womb that takes sperm and egg and births the baby. Then,more rich intelligent women might have kids.

Who would have imagined the rise of gay power in the 50s. But look at gay power today. And what if there are new drugs or bio-engineering to make people stronger or smarter. Everything can change.

"The real question is how the current cohorts of Jewish children today will pan out in the long run."

All they have to do is inherit the power. Jews own so much: media, law, courts, Wall Street, Hollywood, advertising, etc. And can you imagine any group challenging Jews for dominance in those elite power institutions? Mexicans? Whites could but they've been browbeaten to reject white power as 'racist'. Asians might succeed more academically and get good jobs, but I don't see Asians taking on Jews in elite positions. Jews have far more cards to play and also have the Holocaust card which makes them favored over all other folks.

Well, based on current trajectories and not necessarily unrelated to certain factors Steve references, I find it pretty unlikely that America will exist in anything like its current form in 2062, or perhaps even at all...

Okay, but I'm not disagreeing with John either. I don't really know. Surname analysis of a Big IPO list wouldn't be too hard to do, but I'm probably not going to do it, but if somebody else want's to do it, I'm all ears.

The prediction is that the 'Jews of the Orient', the Overseas-Chinese, will take over the role of their namesakes in the USA?

Several possible problems with this idea occur to me: One is RKU's, above. The USA seems destined to be some mix of the Balkans and Brazil. Such entities do not, cannot, exert foreign policy on the other side of the globe. Can they?

Another possibility is that the Asian numbers on tests will eventually result in commensurate (or at least significantly enhanced) sci/tech output in 20 years. It's hard to say.

Why don't you ask actual Jewish mathematicians like the ones down the hall from me. They tell me Jewish kids aren't interested in science these days and the future belongs to the Chinese. But what do they know?

As pointed out on the other thread, the "crazy" Asian PSAT/SAT numbers could be explained by a 107 average IQ for E. Asians in California. Doesn't sound that implausible to me at all. (Isn't that the result often quoted for S. Korea?)

Re: Japanese surnames, have any of the geniuses here looked at outmarriage rates for Japanese-Americans? Just how ethnically Japanese are 17 year old kids with Japanese surnames?

I honestly sometimes get the sense that the "brave HBDers" who comment here actually derive their complete unstanding of the world by reading (and believing!) the NYT/WSJ, or maybe just the WSJ Ed Page. Wake up and smell the lethal fumes.

Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, America was by far the wealthiest large country in the world and certainly among the most productive, with the highest standard of living. It also had a functioning political system and a reasonable social system. Perhaps coincidentally, its elites were reasonably competent and non-corrupt.

During the forty decades since then, the wage of the average worker has been almost completely stagnant in real terms, despite the massive impact of Moore's Law. Meanwhile, we have a gigantic and completely unpayable national debt, huge trade deficits, and a totally non-functioning political system, with the DC politicians currently registering 5% or 10% approval. Perhaps coincidentally, our current elites are perhaps the most incompetent and totally corrupt in the history of the modern world.

We're suffering through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the same financial elites who caused it have gone back to partying like it's 1999.

Now look at China. Over the last few decades, it's achieved the highest sustained economic growth rate in the history of the human species, and the real wages of its workers have doubled every decade. Depending upon methodology, its total economy will surpass that of the U.S. by about the middle of this decade, and its middle class will pass the total size of the American one within a few years after that. Perhaps coincidentally, its elites are reasonably competent and non-corrupt.

By far America's leading export is IOUs, and when---not if---the dollar is replaced as the world's reserve currency, our standard of living will completely collapse. Take a look at Greece since it's probably America's future.

The insouciance of some of the idiots commenting here simply beggars the imagination. I suppose the French Aristos in 1785 had similar attitudes...

"The Japanese have already gone through this self-reckoning, and are the most relaxed and easy going of the Asians as a result."

This doesn’t match my personal experience.

The Japanese I have worked with (auto industry) have been very hard to work with as compared to Chinese. In my experience, the Chinese H1B or in China have also been easier to get along with than ABC who seem to have more of a chip on the shoulder vibe.

"During the forty decades since then, the wage of the average worker has been almost completely stagnant in real terms, despite the massive impact of Moore's Law."

But see it this way. Back in the late 80s, even superrich Gordon Gekko carried around a bigass phone. Today, even poor folks have nifty cellphones. Back in the 1970s, only people in big cities and college towns got to see foreign films. Now, any hick can watch tons of art films via netflix and the like.

Even the most powerful person in the world had to rely on newspapers and TV news before the internet. Now, an average person hooked to the internet had more access to news than headquarters of NY Times did 20 yrs ago.

So, even if wages remain stagnant, we all got phones cooler than what Gordon Gekko had.

Asians may be smart and all, but Jews will most likely still lead. Jews have CRITIQUE while Asians have MIMIQUE.

The reason why Jews came to dominate intellectualism is cuz they not only did the homework and wrote intelligent books but came up with new intellectual paradigms that, true or false, impressed smart people with brilliance, originality, visionary power, wit, profundity, energy, vitality. Whether Ayn Rand on the 'right' or Chomsky on the left, Jews haven't been afraid to come up with new theories and think big thoughts(and down to the minutest detail). Karl Marx wrote 1000s of pages. Ayn Rand wrote a 1000 pg novel to get her ideas across. Milton Friedman came to dominate economic theory on the right in 20th century. And neocons took over the GOP cuz they control the ideas and think new ideas. Even when ideas are wrong, ideas will beat no ideas, and most non-Jewish cons have no ideas.

So, even as Asians enter colleges in bigger numbers, it could be that Jews will create the ideas while Asians will learn them and spout them--as most white gentiles to. US intellectual culture is Jews in elite colleges coming up with new ideas and lesser gentile professors in public universities spouting them. There are tons of white gentiles in colleges, but most of them seem content to study and repeat Jewish ideas. Why wouldn't Asians do the same. So, the rise of Asians may lead not so much to Asian power but even more Jewish power as Asian grinds will be the management class of Jewish minds.

Another thing. Asians, culturally and naturally like to follow, even when they're smart. Jews naturally and culturally like to gain control EVEN WHEN THEY'RE THE MINORITY.

Anyway, consider Chua and Fukuyama. Smart people but can anyone say that their books are groundbreaking and paradigm shifting as some of the works of Jews? Whether one likes Chomsky or Friedan, their books did change history of ideas--and even history.

RKU, let's not get carried away with the China hyperbole. Japan went from medieval feudalism to an industrial economy and war machine that beat a European power (Russia) in a 40 year period. The American economy's growth from the 1860s through 1910 or so was similarly spectacular.

The future may depend on connectivity. Jews are by far the best connected people in the world. In fact, the richest and most powerful nation in the world is Judaenia, and it's less a geographical entity than a psycho-graphical one. Jews in US, Europe, Israel,and Latin America are all very well-connected. They are one people of a virtual-financial-globalist nation(Judaenia), more loyal to one another than to any actual nation. A Polish Jew feels closer to a Russian Jew who feels closer to an American Jew who feels closer to a n Israel Jew who feels closer to a Spanish Jew who feels closer to a South African Jew and etc than any Jew feels for the nation he lives in. Though Israel is a Jewish nation, it is too small to thrive on its own. Thus, it is merely one dot connected to the larger pattern of Judaenia. The most typical member of Judaenia is George Soros. Though a US citizen, he's really an elite member of Judaenia. So is Haim Saban. So are the Adelsons. Jews developed and perfected this mindset cuz they didn't have a nation to call their own for a long time. Though there were times when some Jews looked down on other Jews--as when German Jews looked down on 'dirty' Ost-Jews--, because Jews feared gentiles in all nations, they developed a sense of Jewish-united-ness. Thus, when an American Jew goes to Russia, he is welcomed by Russian Jews, and when Russian Jews immigrate to US, they are welcomed right away by American Jews.

Asian mentality might be different. East Asians--Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese--had a secure homeland for 1000s of yrs and grew very xenophobic(in the true sense of the word). Now, if Jewish power derives from the connectivity of Jews all over the world--in US, Israel, EU, Latin America, etc--, Asian power may never rise up to that level cuz Asians in Asian may feel that Asian-Americans are not really Asian; or Asians might see them as traitor-Asians who deserted their own nations. In Chua's book, we are told that Chinese in China didn't consider her girls as Chinese. In contrast, most Jews will accept half-Jews as full Jews.

Thus, there may be cultural barriers between Asians and Asian-Americans that may prevent their gaining the full advantage of connectivity. Suppose Chinese and Chinese-Americans thought like Jews. Suppose Chinese and Chinese-Americans worked in sync like Jews in US, EU, Israel, and Latin America do. Asians would be far more formidable. In Vogel's book on Deng, we learn that Deng was open to Chinese going to study in America. He didn't feel threatened by 'cultural pollution'. And even if Chinese students remained in the US, he thought they would eventually return to or do something for the motherland. Now,he was a visionary, but do most Asians feel or think that way about Asians who left home?

Exactly. As a young adult, I lived through vaporization of the Warsaw block and USSR. It was predictable but I never thought it would happen so abruptly and quickly. Lesson learned. With everything I observe today, only question is whether I will live long enough to see the USA breaking up. Damn.

But see it this way. Back in the late 80s, even superrich Gordon Gekko carried around a bigass phone. Today, even poor folks have nifty cellphones....So, even if wages remain stagnant, we all got phones cooler than what Gordon Gekko had.

Well, DUH!!! Why do you think I mentioned the enormous impact of Moore's Law?!

Here's another way of looking at it. Today, the average Chinese assembler at Foxconn *also* has a cell phone and the Internet, so I guess he's richer than Gordon Gekko as well. The key point is their rate of economic progress is enormous, while ours is basically zero.

Frankly, I think the only reason there hasn't been a guillotine-style revolution here in the last decade or two is because Moore's Law has conned people into thinking they've gotten enormously wealthier, when they really haven't.

RKU, let's not get carried away with the China hyperbole. Japan went from medieval feudalism to an industrial economy and war machine that beat a European power (Russia) in a 40 year period. The American economy's growth from the 1860s through 1910 or so was similarly spectacular.

Check the numbers. Again, because of Moore's Law, maximum possible economic growth is vastly higher today than ever before, and the China (unlike totally corrupt America) is taking full advantage of this opportunity.

America certainly did extremely well during 1870-1910, perhaps better than any European country ever had, including Germany. And during that 40 year period, real income apparently increased by about 130% (from Wikipedia), which is truly remarkable. For today's China, I think the equivalent figure would be more like 1200% I think. Gee, 130% vs. 1200%, which increase is bigger?...

Most of the commenters here seem to lap up totally ridiculous official propaganda so eagerly I think they really would have been better off living in the old USSR...

Even if Jews slack off a bit they'll hold their advantages due to their strength of character. Or was that the WASPs? Hard to remember. The Scottish enlightenment wasn't so long ago. In a generation they went from dirt farmers to philosophers. Maybe we've just been through the Jewish enlightenment where they went from persecuted scrap metal dealers living in the ghettos of Eastern Europe to the heights of American achievement. Maybe we're in the middle of the Asian enlightenment where they go from over populated peasants to who knows what.

Nobel prizes - definitely a lagging indicator. Not many American born kids went into science over the last two decades. Too much competition from cheap foreign labor.

1. Racial. Most Americans see Jews as white, and most white Americans of both parties are happy with Jews as leaders. If anything, the GOP wants more Jews to come to their side. GOP would give anything to support a Jewish candidate for president. Jews are a minority group with great power. But they're still seen as whites, and that's okay with most groups. White gentiles still feel like they're in power. Blacks are used to having whites in power, and beside, Jews do lots of stuff for blacks. And Mexicans are used to white rule. But imagine of Asians had the kind of power Jews did in media, finance, academia, government, etc. Whites would feel like aliens took over. And blacks would feel cheated, as if Asians got in the front of the line and bypassed blacks in gaining power. And Hispanics are not used to 'chino' ruling things.

Also, if gentile Americans aren't much threatened by Jewish connectivity around the world--as Jews are seen as part of Western Civ--, things may be different with Asian power. When Jews in US, EU, Latin America, and Israel work together, most Americans find nothing wrong with it. If anything, GOP and DEM party act like Israel is a part of America, and it's like Americans and Europeans both share the worship of Holocaustianity and Virgin Anne Frank. But imagine if Americans felt that Asian-American elites (if they were to rule America) were working in cahoots with East Asians across the Pacific. When Japan began to buy up property in the US in the 80s, there was a lot of fear and anxiety. It felt different than when Jews or even European investors increased their investment in America. It was them 'lemon-colored characters' taking oover America. Americans are perfectly fine with Asians as followers or 'model minority' but will feel uneasy about Asians as New Dominant Power in America. Asian as sidekick is okay, Asian as leader not okay. And NY Times plays on that fear too with the Stuy highschool story: LOOK AT ALL THEM YELLERS!!

2. Cultural. Jews and white Christians are fellow people of the Book. Jesus was Jewish, and Christianity is a continuation of the Jewish cultural tradition. And so, there is a deep cultural and historical bond between white and Jews--no matter how troubled it might have been--whereas no such exists between whites and Asians. Asia was always the exotic continent, the far side of the world, the very opposite of the West. Whatever tensions that may existed between Jews and whites, it's now seen as a family squabble, especially one where the whites got too drunk and crazy and killed a whole bunch of Jewish In-laws and so they must make amends.

3. Sexual. For various reasons, Asia = female in the American imagination. Americans feel comfy with Asian female figures in media, movies, etc. Even in this age of feminism, the woman is the subservient symbolic figure. So, when whites see a lot of Asian females in media and entertainment, they think 'Asian femininity putting out to white power'. Americans are less likely to accept the rise of Asian males in media cuz that would change the dynamic--just as many white males didn't like the rise of black males in media and sports(for all the symbolic value it had on social relations). If Asian males become accepted as leader-types, then it may upset the sexual-power-equilibrium Americans are used to.

I really think John is doing nothing more than engaging in strained and sophistical wishful thinking - so many people are threatened by Asian intellectual superiority and it really shows in these kinds of contrived, tendentious attempts at rational analysis.

Imagine what President Eisenhower would have said in 1956 if you came back from the future and told him that in 2012 the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination would compete over foreign affairs mostly by trying to promise the most fervently to beat up Israel's enemies for it.

If by "Israel's enemies" you mean Iran, President Eisenhower wouldn't have been surprised in the least. Just 3 years prior to 1956 he himself had ordered regime change in Iran. Apparently the neocon cabal was driving the American foreign policy even then. Or perhaps America has some enduring interest in that part of the world that remained unchanged from 1953 through 2012 and will probably stay pretty much the same in 2062.

Did someone just hold up Karl Marx as a example of Jewish greatness? Shudder...

Take one thousand Tyler Cowens, mix with several hundred Paul Krugmans, throw in a few Milton Friedmans - and you still won't get something as smart and as original as a single Karl Marx (who was wrong on a couple key things, yes).

" perhaps America has some enduring interest in that part of the world that remained unchanged from 1953 through 2012 and will probably stay pretty much the same in 2062."

Good line. Sailer seems to overstate his case too much sometimes, on this issue, he's usually right but to say that the US has no other compelling reason to be in the Mid. E besides the jews is a dumb point.

>> Remember how there was a brief war in 1962 between China and India over some sparsely inhabited high-altitude terrain in the Himalayas where the border wasn't agreed upon? Perhaps the big issue in American politics in 2062 will be over that border, with one party backing China's claims and the other India's. How do we know that in fifty years, the burning issue of the day in American political and intellectual circles won't be whether China or India has rightful control of Aksai Chin, a region of salt deserts at 16,000 feet?

If that sounds nuts, then imagine what President Eisenhower would have said in 1956 if you told him that in 2012 the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination would compete over foreign policy mostly by trying to promise the most fervently to beat up anybody who questions Israel's right to the shore of the Dead Sea? <<

I have never seen admission to an elite university described as a "vanity project" before, but how true and refreshing!

The hollow shell of the higher education establishment is all too often discovered too late by the people who have invested the most in it. (Consider the "100 reasons NOT to go to grad school" blog: http://100rsns.blogspot.com/)

Vanity, in the way that it is used in Ecclesiastes, is a perfect description of what goes on in academia these days.

Americans are perfectly fine with Asians as followers or 'model minority' but will feel uneasy about Asians as New Dominant Power in America. Asian as sidekick is okay, Asian as leader not okay.

Probably true. But how will Americans feel about a world dominated by China? China's rise looks unstoppable. Within 6 years it is projected that China will become the worlds largest economy, so you can imagine how much further ahead it could be in 50 years.

As a college prof with lots of doctoral students I can share some anecdotal (but widely observed) evidence that bears on Asian/white intelligence and performance differences. The excellent Asian performance on standardized tests is not matched by creative innovation at the doctoral level. So the intelligence differences at the level of second-order factors impacting creative work go against them (particularly in the case of Chinese rather than Indian Asian). They do extremely well on standardized-type testing but then cannot innovate at all.

"The USA seems destined to be some mix of the Balkans and Brazil. Such entities do not, cannot, exert foreign policy on the other side of the globe. Can they?"

Brazil doesn't have a whole lot in common with the Balkans. One has the 7th largest economy in the world and is an emerging power, and another is essentially a backwater. As for whether it can exert a foreign policy globally, sure. Brazil already does so, via diplomacy, trade, investment, etc. Can it exert itself militarily on the other side of the globe? No. Neither does it appear to want to. Why would it?

"Yeah but you think of people like Jerry Yang of Yahoo, Jen Hsung Huang of Nvidia, or Steven Chen, one of the 3 co-founders of YouTube, before it was bought up by Google."

Kinda OT, but this reminds me of my favorite tech moment. At the time YouTube was bought out, there was a magazine article on the 3 founders. The pictures were hilarious: A pasty white guy with long, stringy hair and a ill-fitting jacket. A smiling Chinese guy in a cheap suit. And, last but not least, a grim Indian guy in a zipped up windbreaker on the Stanford campus where he was working on his Master's degree. He had already earlier cashed out as one of the founders of Paypal! His mom must have told him he wouldn't amount to anything without an education.

And, last but not least, a grim Indian guy in a zipped up windbreaker on the Stanford campus where he was working on his Master's degree. He had already earlier cashed out as one of the founders of Paypal! His mom must have told him he wouldn't amount to anything without an education.

Actually that third founder of YouTube, Jawed Karim, is a bangladeshi muslim not an indian. His mother is german. Both his parents are academics, and I also suspect that your last sentence is probably correct.

"I really think John is doing nothing more than engaging in strained and sophistical wishful thinking"

I think John is engaging of a particular kind of wishful thinking I call the end-of-history fallacy. What reason is there really to believe that the 21st century will be less seared in blood and rupture than the last?

Whenever I hear these just so visions of convergence, I see Central Propaganda operating at full tilt: Vietnamese are the new Italians; Chinese are the new Jews. What next? Congolese are the new Mexicans, who are, of course, the new... I don't know, Pakistanis, or something. So there really is nothing to see here folks. The Economist magazine knows all.

"As a college prof with lots of doctoral students I can share some anecdotal (but widely observed) evidence that bears on Asian/white intelligence and performance differences. The excellent Asian performance on standardized tests is not matched by creative innovation at the doctoral level. So the intelligence differences at the level of second-order factors impacting creative work go against them (particularly in the case of Chinese rather than Indian Asian). They do extremely well on standardized-type testing but then cannot innovate at all."

As someone who knows many academics working with Asians at elite levels of US academia, I've heard the absolute opposite - that the best and brightest guys in physics and maths right now tend to be Eastern Asian. You are perhaps a college professor at a mediocre institutions, or work in the humanities?

It's just risible and absurd to me that John actually believes he's using Occam's Razor, when all he's done is engage in the most convoluted of explanations to reassure himself that Asians aren't aren't a threat to him intellectually.

There are several difficulties to projecting Jewish influence in this time-span. First, we have to figure out if Jewish excellence over the past 50 -75 years is an anomaly or not. I think that on the whole it is and doubly so in America. Jews 100 years ago were leaving the shtetl or ghetto and entering secular, public life, especially by immigrating to America. Further, there was a massive immigration of highly-educated, talented Jews chased out of Europe by the Nazis. In fact, the first American-born Jewish Nobel Prize winners in science were in 1958 (as a junior partner in Medicine) and 1960. I would guess that the number of Jewish American Nobel laureates is easily twice as high as it would have been without a WWII. Second, a continuing Jewish contribution to science/technology depends on a distinct, identifiable genetic heritage. This is getting increasingly difficult as the vast majority of Jewish Nobel laureates and other high achieving Jews were secular/atheist. After 4-5 generations of this most of these lines either are extinguished due to lack of progeny or are overwhelmed by intermarriage. Finally, in a related development, American Jewry is changing. It is becoming more and more Orthodox/Hasidic, due to intermarriage, differing fertility rates, younger marriage, etc. If there are differences in intelligence, culture or educational formation (and there are many) this could change the dominance of Jews in many fields. Where was the Jewish prowess in science/technology 200 years ago? It was primarily masked by lack of educational access and a cultural preference for channelling their best and brightest to studying Talmud. I think the 20th century was an anomaly in that it transferred a large number of high IQ, secular Jews into STEM fields, at the cost of loss of Jewish identity. So, yes, many Nobel laureates from 2050-2100 will have a couple jewish grandparents or great-grandparents but they won't identify as Jewish. The Jews that are around will still have geniuses but they will be known mostly as great rabbis in their communities. As a final note, there are only about 5-6 million jews in America, and that number is flat. There are about 15 million Asian-Americans, an increase of over 40% in the last decade alone. It seems that there has been a general turning away from STEM doctoral studies by American-born--Jewish, Asian, everybody.

I really think John is doing nothing more than engaging in strained and sophistical wishful thinking - so many people are threatened by Asian intellectual superiority and it really shows in these kinds of contrived, tendentious attempts at rational analysis.

I think what annoys many of us that asian chauvanists are allowed to trumpet asian superiority at home and then have the chutzpah to tell us that, for some inexplicable reason, we are supposed to host them and their success here too.

I suppose we should be thankful they dont keep telling us its for our own good as well.

Brazilian: Karl Marx and Freud still have a big influence in Continental Europe, not so much in the Anglo-sphere. So there is come Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss, with some Saul Alinsky and Noam Chomsky to please the lefties.

That seems plausible.

Meanwhile, I'd suspect that China largely lacks the inspired ideas of those brilliant thinkers. Yet strangely enough, its economy continues to grow at the fastest sustained rate in the history of the world, doubling every decade, with ordinary Chinese receiving most of those gains.

There are some mysteries which are obviously beyond solution by the human brain.

As someone who also knows many phd students at elite universities, asians do really well on tests and comprehensive exams, till the magic vanishes at the research stage. The brightest kids by far are the jews.

"If that sounds nuts, then imagine what President Eisenhower would have said in 1956 if you told him that in 2012 the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination would compete over foreign policy mostly by trying to promise the most fervently to beat up anybody who questions Israel's right to the shore of the Dead Sea?"

"I think what annoys many of us that asian chauvanists are allowed to trumpet asian superiority at home and then have the chutzpah to tell us that, for some inexplicable reason, we are supposed to host them and their success here too."

The creativity difference between East Asians and others may have its roots in testosterone level, which manifests itself in the Psychoticism referred to in Eyesenck's PEN model of personality. Lower testosterone -> less impulsive, more conventional thinking.

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jang.html

The less willing you are to entertain ideas that are "out of the box", the less creative you will be as a rule. East Asians are great at copying the ideas of others and polishing them to perfection.

The testosterone difference shows itself in the difference between men and women too. Most creative stuff in the world is the product of men. Which makes sense biologically - men can afford to swing and miss in life. Women have children to raise and in general prefer security over the chance to reap the rewards from doing something new and daring.

Thus, there may be cultural barriers between Asians and Asian-Americans that may prevent their gaining the full advantage of connectivity. Suppose Chinese and Chinese-Americans thought like Jews. Suppose Chinese and Chinese-Americans worked in sync like Jews in US, EU, Israel, and Latin America do. Asians would be far more formidable.

You've never heard of the overseas Chinese being the Jews of the Orient? They don't say that for nothing. They've got more connectedness than you give them credit for. They effectively control a lot of South East Asia.

While Jews have blended in with European society for thousands of years, I don't see them having the same success amongst East Asians. They look too dissimilar, and East Asians are a little smarter, a lot more ethnocentric and better at business.

If Europeans are sheep and Jews are sheep husbanders, what many Jews are doing in promoting PC and the "invite the world" strategy is somewhat similar to colonising Africa and trying to ranch lions and hippos instead of sheep. Or worse, taking a country full of sheep and importing lions, hyenas, hippos and the like there thinking that things are going to work out better for you somehow.

Don't count on Chinese and Koreans becoming lazy with Americanization -- count on America's newly minted polyglot, globalized elite becoming more ruthlessly exploitative of all salaried and hourly workers, making more people work harder for less. Also, count on the unsustainable social safety net being pulled away. Count on the 50 million fat, happy, well dressed Mexicans of today turning into 150 million bedraggled, diseased, slum dwellers living in shanty towns and drainage pipes.

"That Asians are exerting enormous effort to do well in areas whose significance is to a high degree about vanity and prestige makes total sense. It brings to mind the way many Third World countries spend enormous amounts to build sparkling, palatial airports, while LAX is a dump ;)"

Very funny. While the Chinese built airports the US spent a fortune in various (vanity?) wars. The airport example is interesting. Instead of building better airports the US build better screeners. My guess is a few 100,000 people are now part of airport security, and being government bureaucrats they are paid like 2 civilians. So you could have built a lot of airports with those kind or resources.

My prediction is Afghanistan gets rebuilt only after the US leaves and China floods in.

As far as future intellectual superstars go, maybe you should look at university professors by age. OR perhaps TED presenters in science. Fields prize winners are much younger. The pound for pound champ in math is Russia, many of whom are in some way, often distantly, of Jewish ancestry. Although the French are clearly holding their own, and also winning the Global War on WhatsIt(judging by high end arms sales to prestige clients like India).

I'm the college prof who posted earlier. Top schools my whole career, but not in physics or math - I am in economics, so perhaps that is why there is an observed performance difference. There are some excellent east Asian economists but not relative to their number of doctoral candidates. Math research seems more like one long standardized test? I do not know anything about physics research, zip.

"Meanwhile, I'd suspect that China largely lacks the inspired ideas of those brilliant thinkers. Yet strangely enough, its economy continues to grow at the fastest sustained rate in the history of the world, doubling every decade, with ordinary Chinese receiving most of those gains."

China is now applying 'the ideas of those brilliant thinkers'. Chinese were so inspired by communism that they became communist. Chinese were then so inspired by free markets that they became quasi-capitalist. Modern China is the product of Marxism and Friedmanism.

"The Jews will still be whining and guilt-tripping about the Holocaust in 2062?"

Christians whined and guilt-tripped about Jesus for 2000 yrs, so why not? Blacks have been guilt-tripping whites for more than half a century, but they seem to be growing even more shrill. MLK is now the official religion of America, and Holocaustianity is the official faith of the West. Faiths live on.

What we are seeing is that Jews are beginning to neglect vanity projects in terms of intellectual achievement - they no longer care about dominating purely social markers of intellectual success, that are more about vanity than real accomplishment

Interesting analysis. It betrays the obsequious nature of HBD commenters with respect to Jews - their brilliance and ability may not be questioned under any circumstances!

"Second, a continuing Jewish contribution to science/technology depends on a distinct, identifiable genetic heritage... After 4-5 generations of this most of these lines either are extinguished due to lack of progeny or are overwhelmed by intermarriage."

Intermarriage will not hurt Jews if Jews marry smart goyim. Who is likely to be smarter? A child of two Jews with IQs of 130 or a child of a Jew with IQ of 150 and goy with IQ of 150? And that half-Jewish kid will see himself as Jewish.

Jews went from religious Jewishness to cultural Jewishness. As religious Jews, they had to stick to Biblical truth and that held them back. But as cultural Jews, they respect their history and heritage but don't believe literally in the stuff in the Torah, and that allows Jews to think freely. The problem with the Right is there is still the prevalence of religious Christianity instead of cultural Christianity. Religious Christianity allows for stupidities such as Creationism which is proving not only to be embarrassing but mentally stultifying to the conservative side. I mean when Pat Buchanan to this day says the world was created as it's told in the Genesis, what the hell is that? And there are people even crazier than him on that account.

"There are several difficulties to projecting Jewish influence in this time-span. First, we have to figure out if Jewish excellence over the past 50 -75 years is an anomaly or not. I think that on the whole it is and doubly so in America. Jews 100 years ago were leaving the shtetl or ghetto and entering secular, public life, especially by immigrating to America."

It's not an anomaly, anymore than black rise in sports is. Jews have been brilliant for a long time but their religious tradition and anti-Jewish laws held them back. But once they've been allowed to express themselves freely, they began to shoot up almost overnight. And it didn't begin with Jews in America but in Europe. Jewish success in 19th century Europe was alarming. Jews were beginning to 'take over' elite areas in Germany, France, Russia, and etc even though they were small in number in many nations. Hungarian business and culture in modern times was almost entirely Jewish. Lithuanian Jews pretty much owned that territory culturally and economically.

And I don't think Jews will go the way of wasps. First, they know they are the smartest. Wasps, upon discovering Jews are smarter, bowed down to Jews. Also, Jews have been struggling and surviving for 1000s of yrs. They grew feisty and developed multi-tracked minds that can play hot/cold, straight/crooked, etc. Look at Henry Kissinger. There is an earnest quality about Northern Europeans(even though they have a highly developed sense of irony)whereas Jews don't fall for that stuff. Also, goyim are divided by small elites and big masses. In contrast, 70% of Jews are like elitists.

The reason why Jews came to dominate intellectualism is cuz they not only did the homework and wrote intelligent books but came up with new intellectual paradigms that, true or false, impressed smart people with brilliance, originality, visionary power, wit, profundity, energy, vitality. Whether Ayn Rand on the 'right' or Chomsky on the left, Jews haven't been afraid to come up with new theories and think big thoughts

That's an embarrassingly ignorant comment. Rand came up with no new ideas, no "new intellectual paradigms". Her writings are a mishmash of classical liberal economic theory and Nietzschean ethics, and her prose style is utterly atrocious.

Jews came to dominate intellectualism because Jews work for their common good in every field. However inane their writings (and in the case of e.g. John Podhoretz they were very inane indeed) they will be treated with a certain minimum degree of respect just because the writer is Jewish.

"As someone who knows many academics working with Asians at elite levels of US academia, I've heard the absolute opposite - that the best and brightest guys in physics and maths right now tend to be Eastern Asian."

There's nothing more to do in physics except look for smaller and smaller matter by colliding stuff. And math geekery isn't as important as how to use it in the real world.

Meanwhile, I'd suspect that China largely lacks the inspired ideas of those brilliant thinkers. Yet strangely enough, its economy continues to grow at the fastest sustained rate in the history of the world, doubling every decade, with ordinary Chinese receiving most of those gains.

______________________

I do think there is much to what John is saying while believing China is in a good position due to her intelligence and work ethic among other things.

Whites, especially, and other Americans value efficiency over vanity with the new normal being that child prodigies and the highly gifted are being home schooled and sent off to university in their teens or earlier.

This mindset places a much smaller premium on taking, say, the PSAT, a test that will tell you how a child might do on the SAT, despite the SAT being a test that can be taken multiple times.

It occurs to me that much of white creativity owes itself to them collectively being closer toward the Asperger's side of the spectrum as those individuals put a premium on efficiency in all aspects of life.

I don't know Steve, it's a fraught question.Basically we are getting down to the essentials of Lynn and Vanhanen, and the cruciality of IQ as the determinant of the wealth of nations - perhas the only work of social science in the last century to actually have profound import and predictive value.China was, in Bonaparte's phrase, a "sleeping giant", it's only in the last couple of decades, an eye-blink in modern history, let alone historica time that the giant has rubbed the sleep out of its eyes, stretched and yawned - what the giant does next is the crucila question, and to mix metaphors to an absurd extent, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. As Stuyvesant school showed in the microcosm, basically whitey as the master of the world has had it, and the chinaman hasn't just pipped him at the post, he's winning by a furlong, only the commentators haven't taken the blinkers (deliberately) off the binoculars. I can almost hear the cries of 'creativity!' right now.

psSo long as the west doesn't shake off the Liliputian binders of the neo-liberals, globalists, immigrationists,Econommist magazine etc, then I give the west 10 years tops before any attempt at rival won't be futile and hopeless.

Please don't laugh at the unoriginal insight in my last post per Asperger's and creativity. Efficiency undergirds the creativity.

I'm the parent of a daughter who should be ready for college at age 12 and we are committed to that path (she's finishing up Algebra I and she just turned 11). My husband also has Asperger's. If I had showed him some of the links that were in some of the threads yesterday, he would have flipped his lid, particularly over the schools for the highly gifted. And finally, he'd let me know I had wasted his time.

If the big issue 50 years from now is which side to take in a war between China and India, and is driven by the loyalties of Chinese and Indian elites, then I say that these people have not become Americans in any real sense. I think the same can be said of many Jews today.

The government can give out citizenship all it wants, but there is more to being an American than the government can grant. In the end, America will be destroyed, and the rest of us will have to assimilate to the Asians and Indians, as we have had to do to a large degree with the Jews.

I'd say that intelligent immigrants can be more of a problem than the dumb ones.

The major difference between Jews and the Chinese/Indian immigrant population is that the Jews were refugees without a homeland when they settled in the US. China and India, on the other hand, have vast ethno-states of their own. I predict the US will slow or halt immigration long before we become embroiled in a war waged between those two countries. The precedent has already been set wrt conflicts between other countries both of whom are our allies.

Assuming Chinese and Indians are as gifted as the asians posting on this blog claim, they should soon be about the business of creating oodles of elite universities in their own homelands. I find it odd no one ever considers that possibility.

We can see the proof or otherwise of non-hostile Jewish creativity in the declining rate of technical innovation since Anglos were displaced.

.America in its current form won't exist in 2062. Average IQ is important but the biggest single factor in national synergy isn't IQ it's cohesion and America's cohesion both ethnically and culturally has been deliberately destroyed as a strategy.

.However a more entertaining thought is that in these three threads you can see the very first steps in the genesis of the world's biggest Doh!!!!

.Lastly, in a lot of tech stuff it seems you get the geek(s) who do most of the work and the spiv(s) who steal it when it's finished and make all the money.

Given all the different Asian groups i wonder which ones will disproportionately play the geeks and which will disproportionately play the spivs?

My guess is the ones whose home countries are the nicest places to live will end up being disproportionately the geeks and vice versa for the spivs.

"I predict the US will slow or halt immigration long before we become embroiled in a war waged between those two countries."

Good luck with that. Not even on the Republican side is reduced immigration even safe to discuss. They can barely muster the nerve to discuss dealing with illegal immigration. Mitt Romney's 80+ page economic plan, available at his website in PDF, is fanatically supportive of more legal immigration.

Ironically, while Mitt has profited greatly from the pro-illegal missteps of his adversaries, his page promises zip, nada, nothing in regards to securing our borders.

"America in its current form won't exist in 2062. Average IQ is important but the biggest single factor in national synergy isn't IQ it's cohesion and America's cohesion both ethnically and culturally has been deliberately destroyed as a strategy."

If cohesion is the thing, how come ethnically diverse America has been so much more innovative than homogeneous nations in Europe and Japan? Japan did some remarkable thing but still lagged behind the US when it comes to innovation. And how come diverse NY and San Fran has more creative synergy than black Detroit or white Wyoming?

"That's an embarrassingly ignorant comment. Rand came up with no new ideas, no "new intellectual paradigms". Her writings are a mishmash of classical liberal economic theory and Nietzschean ethics, and her prose style is utterly atrocious."

But she worded it in a bold new way and infused it with her powerful personality. In cinema, the 'auteur' directors get more respect cuz they don't just make good films but imprint their movies with their personalities. Jews not only got ideas across but imprinted them with their personalities. People like ideas to be associated with faces, personalities, biographies. Jewish ideas may have won greater respect cuz they weren't dry and objective but argumentative and engaging in personality terms. It's like John Sayles is a decent moviemaker but without personal style, and so his movies are less engaging and powerful than those of Kurosawa or Scorsese or Kubrick.

We don't use terms like Adam-Smith-ism because Smith, like Charles Murray, approached ideas as a dry scholar. But we hear terms like Marxism and Friedmanism because they were more than scholars. They had the personality of prophets. There was communism before Marx, but Marx imprinted it with his own personality. The empirical method of Anglo thought de-emphasized personality. My guess even the term 'Darwinism' took hold not because Darwin was such a self-promoter but because his ideas were so alarmingly shocking to so many people at the time; it happened in spite of itself. In contrast, Jewish thinkers promoted themselves as bold and original. There were theories of the subconscious before Freud, but with Freud, it became Freudianism.

Maybe Jewish boldness is partly rooted in Germanness. Unlike Anglo-thinkers, German thinkers and musicians tended to be bolder, more egomaniacal: Nietzscheanism and Wagnerism. Since so much Jewish intellectual ferment in the modern era had origins in Germanic lands, Jews may have imbibed a penchant for grand theorizing from Germans. It's like Hannah Arendt nearly worshiped Heidegger.

So, even if Rand wasn't truly original, the way she 'auteurized' her ideas and vision was original. It's like Thomas Edison may have invented movies but it was Orson Welles and the like who imprinted their personalities on it.

Take Pauline Kael. It wasn't just her intelligence and movie knowledge. She gained popularity, power, and respect through her personality. And this is why Obama is favored in 2012. He has some personality whereas the GOP guys have none.

Suppose all the world was populated by white folks. Would globalism be so bad? Imagine globalist links between white UK, Germany, Canada, white US, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Would that be so bad? So, the problem is less globalism per se than the possibility of whites being swamped by non-whites as a result of globalism.

Sure. I'm not saying they're not creative at all. I'm saying the drop in technical innovation shows they're not *more* creative than Whites. The exception being in social ideas where the majority population has a tendency to not go around destroying their own cultural cohesion. duh.

."If cohesion is the thing"

I wasn't talking about innovation there just whether a nation holds together or not. (I stated it badly.)

As far as innovation goes i do think small amounts of exactly the right kind of diversity in exactly the right places is probably good for innovation.

Take one thousand Tyler Cowens, mix with several hundred Paul Krugmans, throw in a few Milton Friedmans - and you still won't get something as smart and as original as a single Karl Marx (who was wrong on a couple key things, yes).

We can see the proof or otherwise of non-hostile Jewish creativity in the declining rate of technical innovation since Anglos were displaced.

Céline observed that Jews are highly critical of the status quo when they're not in power. They argue passionately for the importance of free and open discussion. Not because of their own interests, mind you, but because of lofty principles.

As soon as they assume power, however, this emphasis on openness vanishes. Suddenly questioning the status quo isn't so virtuous. The old status quo was vicious and oppressive and monstrous, and thus merited subversion, but the new one is, we assure you, infallibly enlightened and rational.

Space travelCities that float in the airTeleportationUnderwater farming

loads of cool stuff

That's applied sciences. Big, big difference. I'm not a quant, much less a genius quant but what I've read and my impression from a few situations I've encountered is that innovation and creative problem-solving are not East Asian strengths. Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, just like I've seen brilliant Anglo engineers compute and calculate and tinker away until their company lost the contract.

"Swan" raised a good point above. If East Asians are so brilliant, why doesn't that brilliance translate into creating their own world-class universities? And if Han Chinese and Indians are so wonderful, why are upper percentile Han and Indians devoting so much effort to getting away from their countrymen?

There is a fundamental problem here Steve in looking at the future. You're projecting mid 1960's-1970's political concerns and social arrangements into the far future.

I'd disagree -- the future will have possibly three basic outcomes: Chinese POLITICAL dominance coupled with China great-power projection in the Pacific (turning it into a Chinese Lake) and making the USA into a clone of China, complete with crony capitalism dominated by Chinese elites in "vanity" (but highly socially connected) institutions; the re-assertion of the Puritan/Progressive/New England/Nordic elite by various pharmacological means to control NAMs and "reform them" ala Stolen Generations into sedate and productive middle class people; or the triumph of Nascar Nation into the traditional resource extraction, high value labor/manufacturing, and military dominance abroad.

Let me add that the Brazil model is NOT in the cards. At all. Because we don't have an economic and social model: the hacienda. We will either have the Puritan/Progressive/Nordic elite trying desperately to "fix" (and they love social engineering, not the least of which is their own extraordinary social cohesion makes them think it can be transplanted to others) to fund Green Dreams.

Jerry Brown wants High Speed Rail. California is broke. Obama wants Algae. The US is nearly broke. These dreams are not compatible with Brazil. The current Puritan elite won't give them up unless broken culturally and socially and then politically. At the same time, the revolt of the Celts/Hillbillies/Nascar Nation in the West is gathering: figuring deport non-Westerners and enjoy the good life. Into the mix is the Chinese elite with a great power behind them and fabulous wealth and connections that are fragile and subject to internecine brutal power struggles.

Brazil is not in the cards because the elites currently have huge PC-driven dreams of mixing Tomorrowland with Small World. I could certainly imagine most Black and Hispanic kids being warehoused and drugged up Clockwork Orange style to make them "productive" -- these are the same folks who gave us Eugenics. Hillbillies may have been behind the Klan, but never the Eugenics movement. Celtic "borderer" peoples just don't think that way in the main.

"If East Asians are so brilliant, why doesn't that brilliance translate into creating their own world-class universities?"

Yeah that's kind of the thing. The University of Tokyo and Kyoto University are already world-class universities. I'm not sure why everyone ignores the obvious fact that 1) Japan was the first East Asian country modernize and as a result the most institutionally developed and 2) The vast majority of East Asians, around 90%, are Chinese and even today China is still fairly poor and undeveloped.

."If East Asians are so brilliant, why doesn't that brilliance translate into creating their own world-class universities?"

Path of least resistance - why create your own when someone else is giving their's away? If all immigration, H1b etc stopped tomorrow we'd see one way or the other.

Personally i do think creativity will be a trait like any other probably with a set of neccessary components (one of which being high average IQ) and different populations might have a higher or lower frequency of that trait but i doubt it's ever zero so i'd have thought numbers and time would make up the difference if any existed.

Holy Cow, just when I wondered where Whiskey was he came in with a bang.

the future will have possibly three basic outcomes: Chinese POLITICAL dominance coupled with China great-power projection in the Pacific (turning it into a Chinese Lake) and making the USA into a clone of China, complete with crony capitalism dominated by Chinese elites in "vanity" (but highly socially connected) institutions; the re-assertion of the Puritan/Progressive/New England/Nordic elite by various pharmacological means to control NAMs and "reform them" ala Stolen Generations into sedate and productive middle class people; or the triumph of Nascar Nation into the traditional resource extraction, high value labor/manufacturing, and military dominance abroad.

Classic Whiskey in that he manages to mention EVERY group that might possibly exert some influence on Uncle Sam. You are brilliant.

In fact, today very few Japanese attend university outside of the country. So presumably, as China comes more developed, the number of Chinese going outside of the country whether or school or work will also decline.

RKU -- China's average income is $4,000. America's is $40,000. True, China is large. It is also incredibly corrupt, and simmering with social violence. Every week buses are blown up by desperate men, who have had land or other things stolen from them, or Uighurs, or Hui Muslims. Riots over unpaid wages, pollution killing kids, and other things (like poisoned baby formula and milk) are common and elites get away with it.

One famous incident had an elite Red Prince prance away from running over and killing a woman by telling the cops his father was some big-wig. If anything Chinese elites are even more stupid, venal, corrupt, and short-sighted than American ones -- which is why so many elites want to shelter their kids and fortunes here. Neither are particularly safe at home in China. That's like the Ottoman Empire circa 1575.

China is big. It is getting older before it got rich -- with catastrophic drops in fertility. Most Chinese have not shared in wealth creation. It has a horribly skewed gender imbalance, far more men than women creating already according to the Chinese Interior Ministry horrible sex trafficking, kidnappings, and such. Its growth rates are non-sustainable, often consisting of empty cities like Ourdos, and propping up bankrupt State Owned Enterprises. China has poured concrete all over the place in the coasts, but the interior remains without roads, rail, power, and water/sewage. Domestic consumption is very low; China depends almost entirely on exporting cheap sneakers and Ipads to the West. Internal innovation is nil, and likely to remain so, China is dependent on copying the West.

China has many, many problems. They are formidable, but shot through with flaws.

"China's average income is $4,000. America's is $40,000. True, China is large. It is also incredibly corrupt, and simmering with social violence."

This is true. China has the potential for greatness but may squander it all. It needs men with real vision and integrity--like Deng, for all his faults--but the communist party may just produce colorless technocrats, like the LDP hacks who came to rule Japan(eventually into the ground). Sometimes consensus is indeed good. But sometimes, a nation needed to be steered with a new vision. China can go on and grow like it's been doing for maybe a decade more, but after that, there will have to be real change.

"If East Asians are so brilliant, why doesn't that brilliance translate into creating their own world-class universities?"

I think it's due to the

1. Burn-out syndrome. Most academic investment is in going to the best college, and so most of the energy is expended in highschool. By the time students enter college, they're like, 'hey we made it' and take it easy.

2. Culture of seniority. In the West, a brilliant young scholar rises fast and is rewarded. Older scholars welcome smart young people, and smart young people wanna climb the ladder as fast as possible. In Asia, outdated older professors may cling to power and feel threatened by young turks, and younger scholars may feel it's only proper to wait their turn. So, there's bound to be less creative firepower in the intellectual community. Don't rock the boat.

"Céline observed that Jews are highly critical of the status quo when they're not in power. They argue passionately for the importance of free and open discussion. Not because of their own interests, mind you, but because of lofty principles."

This is true, maybe more of Jews than others, but all people are like this to some extent. Look at the Iranian Muslims. When out of power, they allied with liberals to overthrow the Shah. But once in power, they clamped down on liberals.

Or look at Pat Buchanan. In the 50s, he was for blacklisting of communists. But now that people like him are out of power, he complains of blacklisting.

So, even if Rand wasn't truly original, the way she 'auteurized' her ideas and vision was original.

And she had the guts, chutzpah, and ambition to cut corners on the truth and claim everything as her own.

Anton LaVey, the part-Jewish Rand-for-trailer-trash, was much the same, "building" on Rand plus Redbeard, Crowley, Heinlein, etc.Although LaVey is a little more honest, when he lets down the hair on his shaved head, and admits his various inspirations.

He was right about a lot of things as a critic of capitalism--alienation of labor, etc--, but he was a fantasist when it came to the future. And though class may not be as important as Marx thought, it is important. No doubt.

Space travelCities that float in the airTeleportationUnderwater farming

Fusion-powered flying carsA cure for cancer, or AIDS, or whatever

None of these things, even slower-than-light teleportation of objects large enough to be visible to the naked eye, are physically impossible. They are engineering challenges. Most of these are economically impractical.

True anti-gravity, and true artificial gravity (not just spinning), is impossible by any reasonable understanding of physics as it stands now. Maybe the physical laws are incomplete; maybe someone will find a way both theoretical and practical to manipulate gravity. Don't bet on it.

Wormholes and other proposed mechanisms for faster-than-light travel and time-travel: the same difficulties with gravity manipulation.

According to Special Relativity, faster-than-light travel and time travel are the SAME THING, due to the nature of space-time, and of course forbidden. But General Relativity states that FTL might be possible. A Theory of Everything to combine SR, GR, and quantum mechanics, is needed for the definite statement on FTL.

When I check in on Sailer and see a post with over 100 on the comment ticker, Jews will be at least part of the subject. Jews are so fascinating. You can't run out of things to discuss about them. They're like literature: news that stays news.

Or look at Pat Buchanan. In the 50s, he was for blacklisting of communists. But now that people like him are out of power, he complains of blacklisting.

The 1950s thru the early 1960s was the height of the cold war, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crises that would've destroyed most of the USSR and much of the USA.

It's not unreasonable for Buchanan or anyone to want to identify and isolate avowed American supporters of the USSR whose main goal was the destruction of Capitalism and global domination via a single worldwide communist system.

On the other hand, it's tyrannical for the all powerful elites that run history's most powerful empire to ruthlessly and uniformly sniff out any dissent, no matter how small or constructive, by any means possible including personal destruction of the likes of Buchanan.

Who appointed you the arbiter of how the rest of us speak? Surely, we have the right to define ourselves as we see fit, and it's absurd to expect us to define ourselves negatively in reference to others. Non-Hispanic Whites and Non-Jewish Whites will not cut it.

"The 1950s thru the early 1960s was the height of the cold war, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crises that would've destroyed most of the USSR and much of the USA...On the other hand, it's tyrannical for the all powerful elites that run history's most powerful empire to ruthlessly and uniformly sniff out any dissent, no matter how small or constructive, by any means possible including personal destruction of the likes of Buchanan."

Using your logic, since America had a long history of racial discrimination--and slavery and maybe even genocide--against non-whites and since blacks were denied equality even in the 1950s, all 'racists' should have been rounded up and silenced. And since WWII was started by far right lunatics such as Hitler and brought so much ruin to the world, one could argue that all 'far right voices' must be suppressed because it might lead to Nazism again. No, if you support free speech, you must support free speech.

Btw, Buchanan has denounced the blacklisting of America First during WWII. Using YOUR logic, since US at war with evil Germany and Japan, was FDR justified in clamping down on America First, in effect blacklisting them from many institutions?

Anti-communism was justified AS LONG AS it didn't violate constitutional principles, but McCarthy pushed the boundaries and smeared as communist a lot of people he didn't like.

True, after one single generation it is likely that a half-jew will associate himself with Judaism, but even then it depends on whether even the basic trappings (kosher, bar mitzvah, etc) are observed in the household. But after two or three generations? Will a woman with one Jewish grandfather identify as Jewish? Highly doubtful, especially if intermarriage is with a non-white culture which is likely to overwhelm the Jewishness.Also, an !Q of 150 is absurdly high as an example. The next generation is likely to regress somewhat to the mean and the spouse is highly unlikely to have the same 150 IQ, since less than one tenth of one percent of the population has an IQ that high. For example, Albert Einstein's last biological progeny died in 2008. He, of course, famously married his cousin, first on maternal, second on fraternal. So, clearly there are many other factors than IQ that go into marriage. Or take Nils Bohr, perhaps the second most famous Jewish Physics Nobel Laureate. His father was Christian, both his first name and his religion but his mother was Jewish. So, he counted as a Jew. His son, Aage, is 1/4 Jewish but is not identified as Jewish and won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1975. His children, 1/8th Jewish show no connection to Judaism. Finally, Richard Feynman, who rankled at even being identified as ethnically Jewish and was a life-long atheist married three times but only produced one biological child, who doesn't seem to have any Jewishness as he had an atheist father and a non-jewish (her name was Gweneth) mother. From these three examples we can see that Jewish genius is linked to Jewish assimilation and lack of progeny, as I said in the original post. It stands to reason that guys who are in graduate school into their 30s will marry late and not attract the best mates as they are low status. They only get high status (Nobel Prize) when they are well past the age of fatherhood, let alone marriage. So the Jewish=genius thing is a passing phenomenon, I'm afraid.

What a stupid canard. Marx's essay on the Jewish question was written to sell gentiles on Jewish emancipation. He wrote on their terms -- essentially, in their voice -- to convince them that emancipation would be good for the goyim.

"If cohesion is the thing, how come ethnically diverse America has been so much more innovative than homogeneous nations in Europe and Japan?"

Dollar for dollar, man for man, the nations of Northwestern Europe have held their own. America benefits from its economies of scale, from its labor mobility, and from its abundance of natural resources. And many of the people doing the innovating in California and New York aren't from California or New York.

But as far as I know where it counts, Jews perform as well as ever. But in terms of social vanity markers, Jews simply no longer have the motivation they had when they were outsiders in American society - which is exactly what one would expect.

Which is funny, because Jews arguably talk more like outsiders today than they did in the 50's or 60's. Jews have become more sensitive about their identity even as they have less need to be sensitive about it. Arguably, we are witnessing regression to shtetl mean in the Jewish community.

Interestingly, whites have been underperforming their average IQ in terms of vanity and prestige projects (including admission to an elite unis, which is in many ways more about vanity than economic success) for quite some time now, which is precisely what one would expect - viewed from sociological perspective - from the group that has the most secure social position and feels the least need to *prove* anything.

Or from a group which is inherently less verbal-analytical and narcissistic than Jews.

I predict that in 50 years, the crazy Asian numbers we are seeing now in all these fields - coupled with a troubling lack of real world excellence - will diminish considerably and become more in line with their average IQ, which will still give them a modest overrepresentation in some fields, but nothing like what we are seeing now.

I predict that there will be some decline, but Asians will continue to be significantly underrepresented in communications related fields and significantly overrepresented in scientific and engineering ones.

The Jews will still be whining and guilt-tripping about the Holocaust in 2062? Even after the last survivor dies out?

Have the Jews ever forgotten a significant act of persecution? They've made holidays out of most of them.

Take one thousand Tyler Cowens, mix with several hundred Paul Krugmans, throw in a few Milton Friedmans - and you still won't get something as smart and as original as a single Karl Marx (who was wrong on a couple key things, yes).

Who was wrong on everything starting with his theory of value, and including the idea that it was the ownership issue and not the scale issue that was cause of alienation in industrial societies. You don't get points for proposing wrong theories that happen to be creative.

Let me add that the Brazil model is NOT in the cards. At all. Because we don't have an economic and social model: the hacienda. We will either have the Puritan/Progressive/Nordic elite trying desperately to "fix" (and they love social engineering, not the least of which is their own extraordinary social cohesion makes them think it can be transplanted to others) to fund Green Dreams.

Whiskey, you're always good for a laugh, often more than one. Bizarre comments like this are no exception.

People tend to forget that heavy Jewish involvement in the "impractical," high science and mathematics, has been a recent phenomenon for The Tribe. The Jewish focus on "practical" jobs like accountancy, law, media, the publishing biz, management, business, finance and entertainment will likely prove more enduring.

Whether Ayn Rand on the 'right' or Chomsky on the left, Jews haven't been afraid to come up with new theories and think big thoughts(and down to the minutest detail).

I think that's correct. Jews are big thinkers. In fact, they're often too big. Jews have a tendency to construct theoretical castles in the sky that only have a superficial semblence to reality combined with a tendency to argue against all empirical evidence that contradicts their pet theories with amazing sophistry. East Asians, on the other hand, are not big thinkers.

If you want a clever toy like a Rubik's cube, then ask a white or a Jew to invent it. Don't ask an East Asian. They're not creative enough. If you want someone to solve that Rubik's cube in 15 seconds flat, then go find an East Asian. We've discussed Jew vs. Asian differences and Jewish personality quirks at some length over on this and other threads at MPC.

Using your logic, since America had a long history of racial discrimination--and slavery and maybe even genocide--against non-whites and since blacks were denied equality even in the 1950s, all 'racists' should have been rounded up and silenced.

The history of race relations is not analogous to 5th columnist within a state facing an external existential threat. Think a bit more before you type.

And since WWII was started by far right lunatics such as Hitler and brought so much ruin to the world, one could argue that all 'far right voices' must be suppressed because it might lead to Nazism again.

NAZIs were the National SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY and competed violently with communist and other leftists for membership during their formation. Read some history before spouting off leftist canards.

Leftist (French Revolution, Bolsheviks, NAZIs, Soviets, Red Chinese, Khmer Rouge, etc) have been far more murderous than any Conservatives. If you argue about preventing -isms from wreaking havoc on humanity, you make an argument for suppressing leftists everywhere.

No, if you support free speech, you must support free speech.

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. There is no such thing as free speech - it is curtailed legally and by the government at all times and in many ways for reasons both good (fire in crowded theater) and bad (arbitrary hate speech laws) purposes.

When a nation's survival is at stake (eg Lincoln) or not even (eg FDR), free speech has been quashed quite dramatically.

Btw, Buchanan has denounced the blacklisting of America First during WWII. Using YOUR logic, since US at war with evil Germany and Japan, was FDR justified in clamping down on America First, in effect blacklisting them from many institutions?

You analogy is false again. WWII America Firsters strongly supported America as she existed but had a different idea how to accomplish that than FDR. Cold War era American Communists disliked America as she existed and covertly sought to rise up the ranks in US government (eg State Dept) to subvert and help destroy the American from within.

In WWI the US itself was not facing an existential threat in WWII. If America Firsters had beaten FDR, the NAZIs and Soviets would've been even more fully exhausted killing each other. Whoever won, the US would've been in an even more powerful position after that conflict to clean up and dictate terms.

Anti-communism was justified AS LONG AS it didn't violate constitutional principles, but McCarthy pushed the boundaries and smeared as communist a lot of people he didn't like.

McCarthy nailed a lot of commies - his batting average was initially pretty good. When he started overgeneralizing into the military and CIA, the system shut him down. Who do you think was unfairly accused?

This is true, maybe more of Jews than others, but all people are like this to some extent. Look at the Iranian Muslims. When out of power, they allied with liberals to overthrow the Shah. But once in power, they clamped down on liberals.

Bad analogy. It would be more accurate to say that moronic Iranian liberals, in their fit of leftist inspired "Who? Whoming?", aligned themselves with pious Muslims. Khomeini, in or out of power, never advocated an open society or a free exchange of ideas. There was absolutely nothing tactful or disingenuous about the Ayatollah.

I am an American PhD who has taught English for over a decade in East Asian unis, and I must concur with the other prof who stated that EAs are better at standardized tests than they are at research and writing. Indeed, this is overwhelmingly the case. EA students generally have a hard time understanding what a thesis statement is and coming up with one on their own. Right now I teach on a special dept at a major EA uni, so my students are different, but generally there's something lacking in EA skills, which explains a lot about the modern histories of EA countries.

If cohesion is the thing, how come ethnically diverse America has been so much more innovative than homogeneous nations in Europe and Japan?"

It hasn't been "much more innovative" than Europe and Japan. It has not even been more innovative than pre-1960's America. It's an article of faith on the left that an ethnically diverse group of people will magically be more innovative than a homogenous group of people. There's scant historical evidence of this being the case however.

But see it this way. Back in the late 80s, even superrich Gordon Gekko carried around a bigass phone. Today, even poor folks have nifty cellphones.Back in the 1970s, only people in big cities and college towns got to see foreign films. Now, any hick can watch tons of art films via netflix and the like

Hooray! We're all richer than Gordon Gekko now! We may be out of work and having our homes foreclosed, but we have neat little cell-phones dammit!

On the subject of Jewish people being smarter than goys, they are by average IQ but not in absolute numbers. So why are they overrepresented by a factor of 10 in the brainiac occupations?

A commenter at Mangan's said:

"Jewish over-representation appears to be a function of more than just IQ.

"For the sake of argument, let’s assume 200 million White Americans (IQ 100), 6 million Jewish Americans (IQ 115), Normal distribution at the tail ends of the distribution, standard deviations for both populations of 15. That would give us roughly 32 million White Americans with IQ 115 or higher vs 3 million Jewish Americans with IQ 115 or higher. For IQ 130 or higher it is 4.6 million vs 950,000. For IQ 145 it is 270,000 vs 137,000. For IQ 160 it is 6,340 vs 8,100. If it is only 105, IQ 160 would be 6,340 vs 1,400."

The average Harvard undergrads IQ is 130 and thus non-Jewish whites should dominate the Ivy League schools, however, that is not the case. Why?"

<1i> If cohesion is the thing, how come ethnically diverse America has been so much more innovative than homogeneous nations in Europe and Japan?" Western Europe is homogenous??? Uhh, you apparently have never been to London, Paris, Marseille, Birmingham, or Montpelier.

The average Harvard undergrads IQ is 130 and thus non-Jewish whites should dominate the Ivy League schools, however, that is not the case. Why?

I doubt IQ explains everything here, but aside from the fact that I've seen multiple estimates of mean Ashkenazi IQ ranging from about one-half to a full standard deviation above whites, you also have to figure out two other things:

1. Is the variance in IQ between the Ashkenazim and non-Jewish whites actually the same?

2. Are all kinds of IQ or subfactors of g (think verbal vs. nonverbal vs. visuospatial) equally important in gaining admission to the Ivies? Past research has suggested the Ashkenazim may display a different distribution of these in comparison to non-Jewish whites.

I doubt the available research provides a definitive answer to either question but I haven't looked very hard.

"Hooray! We're all richer than Gordon Gekko now! We may be out of work and having our homes foreclosed, but we have neat little cell-phones dammit!"

If we can have cell phones without working, hooray.

You know... aristocrats didn't work but lived in privilege cuz peasants did all the work.

Maybe we can have universal aristocracy(at least in the West)by making all them Chinese and Indians work for peanuts. They make the stuff, we pay them peanuts, and all of us live on freebies. And if we can make robots make everything, all the better. We can all live as aristocrats. The problem of aristocracy was only a few got to enjoy life without working. But if it's universalized and all of us can have tons of stuff without working, then aristocracy would be the coolest thing. This is why we need a robot work force. Robots will never organize and go on strike or come at us with pitchforks. Or how about like in Brave New World? A race of slaves who are happy to be slaves as long as we give them soma? The rest of us will be alphas and live like aristocrats and just have fun. It don't sound so bad.

Defending absurdities by reference to absurdities is characteristic of religious people.

It's not an absurdity to point out that claims of "free speech" are not absolute and trump all other rights or concerns.

This anon tried to use an absurd absolute to support his argument. I gave specific examples where his absolute right was both fairly and unfairly overridden by law and logic to demonstrate his erroneous assumption.

Maybe we can have universal aristocracy(at least in the West)by making all them Chinese and Indians work for peanuts. They make the stuff, we pay them peanuts, and all of us live on freebies.And if we can make robots make everything, all the better. We can all live as aristocrats.

Libertarians are insane. Communists had a rock solid grasp of human nature by comparison.

I doubt IQ explains everything here, but aside from the fact that I've seen multiple estimates of mean Ashkenazi IQ ranging from about one-half to a full standard deviation above whites ..

Even it it were a full SD above other whites, Jews would still be overrepresented relative to their IQ.

Is the variance in IQ between the Ashkenazim and non-Jewish whites actually the same?

You are casting about feverishly for an IQ-based explanation, which is odd since you began by admitting your skepticism that IQ explains everything.

Jews are over-represented in "elite" colleges in part because they are willing to pay the full tuition to go there. In some cases I've heard of, wealthy Jews make a generous endowment to a school in return for their children being admitted.

Another reason is that the "elite universities give priority in admittance to the children of alums and of the teaching staff. Guess what? The majority of legacy admits in the predominantly Jewish Ivies are going to be Jews, because they make up a disproportionate share of the professors and of the graduates. The stereotype of the legacy admit as a rich but dim-witted WASP is about half a century out of date. These days the typical legacy admit is a rich and not-so-bright Jew.

1962 War between India and China? Wow. Most Chinese people nowadays don't even know there was such a war. Indians on the other hand still look at this war as if it happened yesterday. Anyway, here are some info on this war.

Udolpho.com said..."And this is why Obama is favored in 2012. He has some personality whereas the GOP guys have none."

You had me then you lost me. Obama has no personality at all, and his lack couldn't be more glaring. He makes Romney seem madcap."

God d@#n but I agree with you there. What a dead-eyed automaton he is. That phoney smile that quivers with smug resentment anytime things don't go his way. They packaged & sold him, programmed him with all the right cliches. They wanted him because anyone who reasonably objects to his deeds can be termed "racist" as if that means anything anmore.Personally I never thought people really cared that much for him (outside the beltway; I live in DC.) His popularity has always been hollow and is more so now. The people I know who do support him still (whites that is) are non-thinkers or political appointees, who just want this blackish man with a liberal label tattooed on to be their best black friend. Yet he's made it so obvious he's not. Thank god nobody goes on about B.O.s great and luminous intelligence any more. While I could just barely stomach the cult of his personality (such cults are always irrational anyway), the cult of his great "intelligence" was so blatantly absurd that it drove me crazy seeing otherwise lucid people believing in it. Please, whoever programs the teleprompters and makes the policy decisions takes the blame or credit for any "intelligence" emitted from the direction of WH. But nobody talks about Obama being smart anymore. Mostly now they argue about how stupid he is. That's progress.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.